CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

[SwnGwyrdd]

Hi, I'm new to this forum so please excuse if this isn't in the right place etc.
I tried using the form for this, but I kept getting a "message is too short" error.
Anyway...

In August 2017 I was applying for a tenancy in a new flat. A credit check was done and the letting agents found that I had a CCJ for ~£3k on my credit history that I knew nothing about. It was apparently applied in March 2017. I had to buy a couple of credit checks and some court record searches to find out what it was about.

I found that it was done by The University Of Manchester (UoM) over unpaid tuition fees for 2012/2013. I had my entire tuition fees paid for by the Student Loans Company (SLC), I'm from Wales so I believe it to be Student Finance Wales specifically. I spent days trying to work out what happened calling UoM, SLC and Hadfield & Co, who I discovered were UoM's solicitors.

It turns out that SLC had not properly paid my tuition fees for 2012/2013. For some reason, UoM decided to wait 4 years before chasing this up and apparently came after me for the payment instead of SLC. They sent a CCJ to an address I hadn't lived at for 4 years, and when I obviously didn't respond as I had literally no idea about any of this, they raised a CCJ against me. After weeks of getting hounded by Hadfield & Co and desperately calling UoM and SLC, I finally got SLC to pay the outstanding fees. However, now I'm getting shafted with the legal payments for all of this.

While all this was going on, I had to pay a huge extra fee for the tenancy agreement that I had originally applied for as the letting agents wouldn't take me with a CCJ otherwise and I would be homeless, this was over £1k and I have been financially screwed since, and been under all kinds of stress trying to get this sorted.

None of UoM, SLC or Hadfield & Co want anything to do with me unless I pay the legal fees and keep pawning me off on each other. Since literally none of this is my fault, and I have been under significant financial hardship and emotional distress since, I believe that SLC should pay the legal fees as they have admitted fault by paying the outstanding balance, and compensate me for the letting agent's fees and other costs.

I don't really understand all the legalese they keep throwing at me, and the processes for court cases etc are completely alien to me as I've never been through anything like this before. I desperately need some help.

Thanks.

[R0b]

Re: CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

I think you have got yourself into mess with this CCJ.

What you should have done is not have contacted SLC and instead made an application to the court to set aside the CCJ, and then once set aside, joined the SLC as a part to the claim and to pay the oustanding balance. Instead, the SLC have paid the outstanding loan money but the CCJ is still against your name and therefore as it currently stands Hadfield and Co. have the legal right to pursue you for their legal costs, however unfair you might find it. You will also have a CCJ against your name for the next 6 years. You really ought to have got the SLC to pay for those legal costs too.

Perhaps a couple of options. You pay their legal fees and then pursue SLC for the lost money, or you can apply to the court to set aside the CCJ.

The problem I foresee in attempting to set aside the CCJ is that the balance has already been paid save for the legal fees. Since it has been paid, that is likely to amount to an admission that the sums are owed. Your alternative to that I guess is to argue that you were not the correct person to be named on the claim and it should have been the SLC - in that case you'd have to check the university's T&Cs on payment of the tuition fees and whether it says they can pursue you and/or the SLC for non-payment.

Aside from that, I can't see any other way out of it in your case.

[SwnGwyrdd]

Re: CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

Hi R0b,

I had no idea what I was doing, I was panicking and stressing about being homeless and needed to sort it out as fast as I physically could.

Setting aside a CCJ apparently costs £255, if successful is there any way to claim that back?
What happens if it is set aside?

If I pay the legal fees the judgment will apparently be "marked as satisfied". What does this mean, what implications does this have, and will it still appear on my record?

This is so unfair.

[Debt Camel]

Re: CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

To get the CCJ off your record, you need to apply to have it set aside. Just paying the legal will get it marked as satisfied but it stays there for 6 years from the judgment date and will still harm future tenancy applications and credit applications.

I don't think the set aside should be a problem as you can show that the SLC paid the money, not you.

Once that is done, you could ask SLC to pay your costs and consider suing them if they refuse.

[R0b]

Re: CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8m2rcxulnh...e%29.docx?dl=0

The link above is some written information I prepared on setting aside a CCJ, I would suggest you read it so you understand, but if you are successful then yes you would normally get your application fees back.

Once you pay the fees you can ask the court to provide a certificate of satisfaction which costs £15. You will need to evidence that it has been paid usually by confirmation from the other side. Maybe its marginally better than having an outstanding CCJ on your file but everyone will have their own view on that.

If you do go down the set aside route then there are potential costs risks which is set out in the guide referenced above. You might want to consider asking Hadfield and Co. to consent to setting aside the CCJ but they don't have to and they may very well oppose your application. You'd really be asking the court on discretionary grounds to set aside the CCJ and I guess you might have to grovel for it! The other issue relating to setting aside a CCJ is the promptness of the application. Your issue seemed to have come about around August '17 and we are now in December going into January '18. That's more likely than not going to be considered by the court as prompt but it is not fatal and they will consider the other circumstances too.

It is a judge's discretion and if you lose then there's no other recourse after that.

[R0b]

Re: CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

[MENTION=48934]Debt Camel[/MENTION] I'm not sure its as clear cut as you think, unless there is a judge who is sympathetic to it. The issue of promptness is still considered to be important in many applications to set aside and judges have become alot harsher in recent times.

[SwnGwyrdd]

Re: CCJ - The University Of Manchester v Me

Thanks guys.

Sounds like setting aside is the way to go then. I'm not going to just bend over and pay the fees only to have it stay on my record and mess up any credit checks for the next 6 years.

RE: Promptness - SLC only respond to any inquiries/emails "within 10-15 working days". UoM and Hadfield & Co both have similar waiting times to get any info from, and trying to get anything from the court was useless. They've only just this morning sent me some of the info I requested a fortnight ago. If I could get information instantly, this would've been so much quicker.